User Profile
Search
Blog Viewer
The red corner
Saturday, November 28 2009 - 03:44 PM Persevere. Guy R. Marsh Former member (1988-1990): Peace & Freedom Party Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored <a href://www.pacifica.org/">Pacifica Radio (tune to 90.7 FM, KPFK, Los Angeles; 98.7 FM in Santa Barbara County. (Note: As per usual, the following type of comment posts will be deleted; those containg childish or otherwise offensive material; those whose content is made up of more than fifty-percent cut-and-pasted material; and those containing video clips, irrespective of whether or not they might also contain original, written material of any length.
Patriotism
I received a private message from an individual who, in response to my recent statement "…I hope to visit [Cuba] sometime during 2011, wrote (in part): “You are not a patriotic American. You hate capitalism and the capitalists who provide jobs and who make this country the greatest country in the world. You are against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because you are a traitor who doesn’t know that our brave soldiers are protecting us from terrorism. So when you go to Cuba, why don’t you stay there [sic]?”
(With the author’s permission, I have elected to respond herein):
First of all, I must say that our questioner’s
communication is yet another testament to the fact that the capitalist media (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.), the schools, the churches, the politicans and still other handmaidens of capitalist rule have performed their job quite well. For, if the public opinion polls and the likes of our questioner serve as any indication, the minds of the vast majority of Amricans have been thoroughly conditioned by the cavalcade of capitalist propagandists that deceitfully seek to associate the interests of workers with the vastly different interests of their capitalists masters toward the waging of wars within Afghanistan and Iraq.
In reality, however, the American citizenry is anything but a homogeneous mass in possession of identical interests, but a society firmly divided into two very distinct classes – the gigantic working class as well as the infinitesimal capitalist class that lives in grandeur off of the unpaid labor of workers. Therefore, there are in fact two types of patriotism – in truth better referred to by other designations. There is capitalist class patriotism which is actually nothing more than national chauvism. Such “patriotism” likens loyalty to the country with loyalty to the capitalist state/government and its capitalist-class-serving practices and policies. It strives for the acquiescence of the working class in the crimes and military aggressions against the Third World that are carried out at the behest of the capitalist class.
There is, however, a type of patriotism that I believe that workers should subscribe to; loyalty, not to this country’s capitalist-serving institutions, but to its people; more accurately, to the overwhelming majority of its people – the working class – with whom they hold common, material interests. With that in mind, we workers would serve ourselves well were we to consider Daniel De Leon’s conclusion that (and I paraphrase) “The corrupt beginnings of patriotism is the corrupt physical requirements of primeval man.” As an issue of simple survival, primeval humankind perceived itself duty-bound to “look at all other human beings as being hostile, therefore as being hostile, therefore as being inferior, to such a degree as to fasten supreme importance and superiority to his own home, his own village, his own family.” —excerpted from, should memory serve, the Daily People, circa 1900.
But as humankind’s material conditions came to be altered – the consequence of developments vis-a-vis the means of production – the very size of the assemblage to which such loyalty was requisite for continued survival was also changed. Coupled with better and thus more efficient means of production (albeit still relatively primitive), the size of said assemblage that this loyalty protected grew, and patriotism produced both cohesion and a rather progressive force which brought together a greater probability for yet more economic growth.
With an eye toward our questioner’s comment that I “hate capitalism,” I should like to continue by saything that, with the advent of capitalism, patriotism took on a mostly national form, helping to meld the means of industrial/economic production that today allow for the production of economic wealth in abundance. Accordingly, no longer is it necessary for groups of individuals to compete against one another nor to wage war against one another so that they may attain the economic wealth required to assure their very survival. Nonetheless, and just as surely as I continue to be burdened by the utterly false allegation that I “hate capitalism,” the totality of humankind still finds itself saddled with an antiquated socioecomic system – capitalism – which is in need of such lethal competition for the sake of its continued existence.
Capitalist patriotism, then, is really nothing more than chauvinism intended to deceive the working class into permitting the use of its children as cannon fodder – used to secure still greater wealth for the capitalist class by way of the killing of workers in foreign countries. Indeed, classconsciousness – dedication to one’s class – is patriotism.
Lancaster, 93536
Member-at-large (since 1990)
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
Former member (1982-1988): Democratic Party
Former member (1976-1982): Republican Party
I thank you all.
mattkeltner says...
When I was more liberal, I didn’t think communism or Marxism should be brought to the U.S. I bought and read the Communist Manifesto (twice!), but never took it seriously. It was more of a literary soiree on my part.
What I wanted in my more-liberal days was for the U.S. to be modeled after the social democracies of Scandinavia.
As I got older, however, I began to realise that the demographic reality of the U.S. prevents it from ever becoming a social democracy, due to the variation in lifestyles, work ethics, expectations, cultural variances and other contributing factors.
I will probably always be a “Social Democrat at heart”, but I realise that there are things that work better some places and not-so-well in others.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
In germany there is great outcry over the immigrants living like kings on welfare and not attempting to find a job. Much like the case in todays LA Times, the woman has one of her kids killed, she has had 7 children and the last died cause he lived with her ex boy friend. Been on welfare her whole life and does nothing but do drugs and drink. The family will be getting a 1.6 million dollars settlement for her uncle who was shot by the LAPD. These people are just a bunch of parasites who won’t work and feel they are entitled to all the benefits.
( send private message )
Cybertariat says...
Randy Hall: “If we did away with the ‘capitalist class’ and divided up its [expropriated] riches, evenly, the average pay out would be the equivalent of a discounted, Wal-Mart-sold DVD player for everyone…[sic]”
First and foremost, were it a goal of revolutionary socialists to “divvy up” the collectiive and immorally obtained riches of the capitalist class, the sum total of that economic wealth would be infinitely more than a mere $29.700.000.000.00 (the approximate cash value of approximately 297,000,000 discounted, Wal-Mart-sold DVD players.; the number 297,000,000 being representative of the approximate number of American workers). The collective economic holdings of the roughly one-percent of the American population known here as the capitalist or ruling class quite obviously amounts to several trillion dollars. (This latter dollar figure is based upon the fact that, in its totality, the US economy is valued at an estimated fifteen-trillion-dollars; having been valued at roughly twenty-trillion-dollars before the onset of this latest crisis in capitalist production.)
But let us suppose that Randy is correct. Let us suppose that such a “divvying up” is, in fact, a goal of we revolutionary socialists, and that such an undertaking would net each member of the American working class but approximately one-hundred-dollars or an aggregate total of approximately $29.700.000.000.00. In which case, that approximately $29.700.000.000.00 would still rightfully belong to the class whose collective labor power and intellectual power – whose collective blood, sweat, tears and headaches produced it.
To put it another way, were Randy to fall prey to an armed robbery that netted his assailant but a single dollar, do any of you suppose that Mr. Hall would not wish for that dollar to be returned to him in the event that the thief came to be apprehended, if for no other reason than the principle of it all? Not likely. Well, the same holds true for whatever amount of economic wealth has been stolen from the working class by the capitalist class and, for that matter, the petty capitalist class. Going forward, it is our economic wealth, and we – the working class – need be in charge of its dispensation, regardless of its amount, which happens to be nothing short of gargantuan. The question of bourgeois legality be damned!
Randy Hall: “150-years ago, such envy of others might have seemed desirable…[sic]”
Yes, that is it, we socialists are and always have been motivated by simple envy. It has nothing to do with that which was discussed above, nor with the issues I have enumerated within this forum for more than three-years now. It has only to do with envy; another of the many non sequiturs regurgitated by political reactionaries who, while towing a completely vacuous ideology, attempt to manipulate others into believing that which is untrue becaae they – our right-wingers – are devoid of any sort of legitimate argument.
*
marino: “Poor and/or unemployed Americans are better off than most of their counterparts throughout the world; entirely due to capitalism. Entirely [sic].”
Yes, relative to poorer workers within the Third World as well as those in the Second or Developing World, many poorer members of the American working class are “better off” (though it is difficult to imagine that the physical pangs associated with America’s already widespread and growing hunger crisis are somehow lessened by the fact that they are suffered by Americans. Hunger is hunger!) It is also true that, unlike, say, poorer Bangladeshis, many poorer members of the American working class do possess amenities such as automobiles, household air conditioning, television sets, cell phones, personal listenening devices, etc., etc. But this is due largely to America’s so-called social welfare system that was established for the all but admitted purpose of safeguarding the capitalist system by way of placating the members of its perennial underclass – by lessening the otherwise ghastly social effects born of capitalism’s immovable economic contradictions. (Socialism vs. liberalism, 9th paragraph)
Consequently, the fact that many poorer Americans are relatively better off than their counterparts in much of the rest of the world is, as marino pointed out, “entirely due to capitalism,” but it is clearly not the result of some sort of perceived benefit having to do with capitalism. Rather, it is the result of capitalism’s previously mentioned economic contradictions and, accordingly, of the social welfare programs that were intended to lessen said contradiction’s horribly antisocial effects – social “welfare” programs that sprang from the appoval of both liberal and conservative politicians. After all, what amounts to anti-socialist/“reformist” legislation is and always has been a bipartisan effort (as if there were any real differences between the Democratic and Republican political parties to begin with. That, then, will stand as my response to Randy’s typically idiotic and incessant statement that liberalism and Marxism “seem so much alike” (see this thread’s sixth bumper-sticker-like comment post.)
Moreover, poorer American’s “Better Off” designation does not serve to diminish the chronic danger and stressful insecurity of their being even closer to homelessness than are the rest of us at any given time. Nor does it justify the further existence of any degree of poverty within a soiety that is more than capable of providing an economic abundance for the lot of its citizenry. It does not excuse the fact that workers, including the working poor who tend to vacillate between periods of employment and periods of unemployment, are robbed of the bulk of the economic wealth that they and they alone produce throughout the course of their working lives thereby greatly exacerbating poverty as well as many other social ills. And, finally, it surely does not justify the continued existence of the once progressive and very necessary but now antiquated and misanthropic capitalist system.
Persevere. Guy
( send private message )
Cagy Wolf says...
As usual Gay Marsh, you don’t get it. All the teaching of Marx did is to allow more dictators in the world with names like Mao and Stalin. Stalin and Mao killed millions and made Hitler look like a beginner, Mao alone is responsible for over 50-70 million of his citizens dead. Is that why marxism is so fine? And with Obama the power mad anti christ in power we should all be in fear that he does get the control he wants and all marxism is control and power.
( send private message )
Martel says...
I am also against both wars and I would visit Cuba in a heartbeat it so happens I have cuban friends, great people,Point I am no Traitor.
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Guy it would be for the world not just the U. S. Worker. You said socialism isn’t possible unless capitalism is no more. So all the climbing our country did would be evenly shared will all people.
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Notice how truth about socialism only takes a few words, but it’s response even one as educated as Guy’s is so easily dismantled.
( send private message )
Cybertariat says...
Randy Hall: “…but its response…is so easily dismantled.”
I see. Well, Randy, I’m looking forward to your doing so.
*
Cagy Wolf: “In Germany, there is great outcry over immigrants who, while collecting social welfare, live like kings and make no effort to find jobs.”
Far be it from me to suggest that Western Europe’s capitalist influenced and thus steadily decaying social “democracies” are not highly prone to such social disintegration (they are), but I have been hard-pressed with respect to securing the type of information that would serve to substantiate Cagy Wolf’s statement relative to Germany’s immigrant population. In fact, what little information that I have managed to gather reveals that “…Germany’s foreign residents remain vital to the [German] economy, parts of which would shutdown if they were to depart. They also contribute to the country’s welfare and social insurance programs by paying twice as much in taxes and insurance as they receive in benefits.” (Emphasis mine; fifth paragraph.)
Nonetheless, I would very much appreciate my being guided toward information that would make evident the ways in which Germany’s immigrant population is placing strains upon that society’s social welfare system.
I thank you all.
Persevere. Guy
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Guy, you said you needed capitalism to raise up a population to a standard of living that socialism is unable to do. Then once we have a desirable standard of living and I assume you think the US is desirable we could then abolish capitalism and truly live free in a socialist economy. Right?
If the above is true we have billions not living to our standard, to which you have agreed. We then need to find the best way to raise them to our standard. Using what you have said in the past, I’d suggest before we handcuff our capitalist economy we export what worked for us to the billions of poor in the world.
If we slit the throat of the greatest economic engine before we raise the billions us to our level we risk the possibility of lowering our standards to be more equal to the billions of poor.
8,000,000,000,000 people times a Wal Mart DVD player $100 equals 800,000,000,000,000. It would cost 800 billion dollars to give everyone in the world a $100 DVD player. To give them what the average worker in the USA has, and let’s say that is one car $20,000 one house $100,000 and let’s round that to $500,000 a person you get 400,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 400 quadtrillion dollars!
This means to raise up the standard of living in the world which I guess is a goal of socialist but I might be wrong we would have to multiply our entire economy of the USA by a factor of a billion!
Guy at this moment in time that is impossible. So I can only conclude you want us at their level or you don’t really care about them. I know the second is not true but it leaves open that possibility for speculation.
Since I’m not used to working with powers of 19 and higher, my math may be off. But I think you get the idea of the impossibly of Guy’s economic order unless we cut our throats to achieve his parity.
(
send private message
)
dbeardw says...
There will always be the haves and the have nots. What becomes scary is that we have made the haves Gods and have made the have nots the enemy. Randy, in the middle, for example, doesn’t want to share a dime with anyone. The rich don’t want to share because money breeds money and why should they uplift anyone even when they were born into money. The poor just hobble along, getting what they can and often living happier lives then those who have plenty. The poor don’t jump out the window, slit their throats or jump off of bridges when they get even broker. It’s the rich, those that are use to being treated like Gods that can’t handle living a lesser lifestyle.
I remember when Mary Magdalene was washing the Lord’s dirty feet with her fine expensive oils and people told her not to waste the oils. They thought of how much money she could make if she sold it. Christ was astounded. Wasn’t he worthy, he wanted to know. He had not crown of jewels on his head, no riches to speak of, but he was worthy to have his dirty feet bathed in the richest of oils.
In the capitalist state we all live in, there are those who understand loyalty and commitment to a fellow worker. But the loyalty and commitment long ago ended with the company itself because people understood that it was not reciprocated. History tells us that workers are more and more disenchanted with the capitalist at the top because they have been shown that they — the average joe is expendable. When copanies can lay you off a few months before you are to get your retirmenet and play all other types of games with you life, loyalty turns to hate and thus the sense of distrust and despoising of the capitalistic system as it was initially created to be.
We murded the true sense of capitalism and all that was good about it with our greed, lack of integrity, and desire to cheat the middle class worker.
(
send private message
)
lancaster says...
i think the story u tell DB was that it was commented at this time, that the oil could be sold to help feed the poor. that was when jesus said the poor will always be with us
Judas, the keeper of the treasury bag and a thief, is worried about money that could have gone to the poor. kinda like ……?
if we’re talking of mark n john, it was mary of bethany and
intended for his funeral, and jesus
said the poor will always be with us, i (jesus) won’t be.
luke speaks of the woman at the pharisee’s who bathed his feet
for the forgivness of her sins.
(
send private message
)
lancaster says...
to your thread, guy, at some point capitalism became greed. nothing more and nothing less.
at one time, we had safe guards to make sure all profited, some more then others, sure, but it was spread around a bit more in our history. nothing extravagant, but just 20yrs ago a worker could look forward to a pension, and retirement healthcare.
with savings and social security, one could look forward to nice, (not just keeping the wolf from the door) and comfortable “golden” years. forced to use a 401k instead of pensions, we not only are at more risk, do to the markets, but find our money being invested in the same co’s cutting our benefits.
someone told us we were unworthy, and damn if we didn’t believe em.
and as we are now, there will be no golden yrs. we all have to keep working, just to have healthcare.
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
Saying something is greed doesn’t make it true. Capitalism is responsible for the greatest standard of living man has ever experenced. To say that is greed ignores all the good it does. Our capitalist. Country is the first to respond to a major crisis and the first country the world asks for help. That help is always generous. To say that is greed thank God we are.
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
You know Lancaster blogging with you is like trying to tech a pig to sing.
“but just 20yrs ago a worker could look forward to a pension, and retirement healthcare.” And it destroyed General Motors. But they had too much already right? Social Security is broke too, who’s going to bail them out? Medicare, is broke who’s going to bail them out?
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
Randy Hall: “Guy, you said you needed capitalism to raise up a population to a standard of living that socialism is unable to do.”
Never have I declared any such thing.
What I have declared on countless occasions within this forum is the fact that socialist society would be able to take hold only within the context of an existing capitalist society – within the context of a fully industrialized society so that that society’s newly revolutionized and wholly organized workers would be able to both assume control of the means of production as well as to administer those means of production in perpetuity (Prerequisites. The clear lack of fully industrialized infrastructure is the very reason behind the failures of the Bolsheviks and all other such would-be Marxists to establish socialism within Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, etc. Their respective peoples, being inhabitants of agrarian or semi-agrarian societies, were, accordingly, simply unable to organize themselves in such a way as to establish any semblence of a people’s government (people’s government. This complete lack of industrialization [industrialization being the “glue” which binds all modern societies] served as the catalyst behind Vladamir Lenin’s Vanguardism which took hold within the Russian revolution of 1917 as well as within all such subsequent revolutions, and which also happens to be a bastardization of Karl Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat which later came to superseded by the conception of industrial government or Socialist Industrial Unionism [SIU].)
Now of course at this point Randy will undoubtedly chime in with his usual and completely off base (and I paraphrase) “You have to kill capitalism because socialism is too weak.” But such statements are utterly unfounded. For the supplanting of capitalist society would be emblematic of nothing more than the latest development in human social evolution just as capitalism supplanted mercantilism; just as mercantilism supplanted feudalism; just as feudalism supplanted hunter gatherer societies; and just as communist society would supplant socialist society.
Randy “Randy ‘Tex’” Hall: “Then, once we have a desirable standard of living (and I assume you think the US is desriable), we could abolish capitalism and live free in a socialist economy, right? [sic]”
If we are to equate “a desirable standard of living” with the contemporaneous “fully industrialized society” then, yes, such a set of circumstances is part of what would allow for the establishment of the American Socialist Commonwealth. (The other part of that equation being the successful evocation of the United States Constitution’s Article V by an industrially organized and classconscious citizenry that would, by logical extension, be well-grounded in socialist principles and therefore prepared to assume control of and administrative authority over the means of industrial/economic production.) But, in reality, it is not a matter of “once we have a desirable standard of living” – a fully industrialized society" because we already have that very thing. After all, we – the members of the American working class – are the ones who happened to have built this fully industrialized society. It is just that we do not own it. And therein lies the root cause of nearly every social pathology under the sun. The crisis of [economic] accumulation (Marx) – the crisis of an ever-increasing amount of working-class-produced wealth being funneled into fewer and fewer capitalist hands – has created an artificial yet, at the same time, very real competition between we workers in which we vie for what few economic crumbs are left to us by our capitalist masters. A competition that directly translates into everything from scanning one another’a jobs – to street crime, not to mention the more personalized consequences such as alcoholism/drug abuse, divorce, suicide, etc., etc.
Randy: “If the above is true, then we have billions not living to our standards to which you [Cybertariat] have agreed to. [sic]”
All right.
Randy: “…We then need to find the best way to raise them to our standards.
Using what you have said in the past, I’d suggest – before we handcuff ‘our’ capitalist economy – that we should export what worked for us to the billions of poor in the world [sic].”
Not to suggest that everyone else on the world is much interested in matching our standards (high rates of militarism, imperialism, obesity, mental illness, child abuse, etc., etc.), but whatever it may be that the rest of humankind wishes for itself, self determination, for lack of better terminology, is what “worked for us” for the balance of humanity. By establishing the American Socialist Commonwealth and thus an economy that would be geared toward meeting human needs rather than the narrow, self-interests of a tiny group of individuals and their economic system’s innate and antisocial contradictions, we would then and finally allow Third World peoples the ability to develop their lands and resources for their benefit. No longer would foodstuffs, oil, timber and other resources be simply harvested or otherwise extracted from what are now known as Third World nations; resources that are currently and for the most part processed and consumed within the industrialized world.
Randy: “If we slit the throat of the greatest economic engine before we raise the billions up to our level we risk the possibility of lowering our standards in order to be equal with the billions of poor [sic].”
But Marxian socialists are not interested in “slit[ting] the throat of the greatest economic engine.” We merely endeavor to divest the ownership and control of that greatest of economic engines from the infintesimal capitalist class and thus that class’ ability to negatively effect the lives of billions, including the American class which also suffers the effects of Third World exploitation, not to mention the effects of its own exploitation. And so, by transforming the current economic engine into one that would serve the human needs of all Americans, so too would that transformation permit the rest of the world to meet its own human need.
Randy: “Guy, at this point in time, that is impossible.”
Yes, I am quite certain that that is exactly how Randy feels. So too do I believe that that is the way in which Randy will feel until the very day of his death.
*
Yes, lancaster, I believe that I do understand your comments concerning modern-day capitalism. I will, however, have to disagree that the now decades-long parade of workplace concessions relative to wages, healthcare coverage and pension plans has much if anything to do with greed. More to the point, these and other such social ills stem from the aforementioned inherent and immovable economic contradictions of the capitalist system itself. That concessions and worker insecurity were virtually unheard of, say, forty-years ago had to do with the fact that capitalism had not yet entered its global or final stage while it had nothing to do with a lack of greed. That these things are now commonplace and growing still hasn’t anything to do with greed while it has everything to do with the individual capitalists’ desire – indeed their inextinguishable need to stay in business despite globalization and to therefore maintain their privileged positions within capitalist society.
Ergo, wage and benefit concessions, layoffs, “downsizings,” mergers, buyouts and the like are, within the context of the American capitalist system, nothing more than necessary efforts on behalf of American-based corporations to remain competitive with their foreign competitors who are oftentimes far less hampered by the likes of labor contracts, pension plans and healthcare coverage.
The danger, I believe, in wrongly associating capitalism’s unavoidable social consequences with simple greed is that, by doing so, one suggests that America’s steadily deteriorating social fabric has to do with personalities; that “If these business people would stop being greedy everthing would be all right – everything would be the way it used to be.” But that simply is not the case. For the ever-accelerating social ills born of modern-day, monolithic capitalism are systematic in nature rather than patholgocal, and they will not end nor even abate until capitalism itself comes to an end, one way or the other.
*
Socialism or barbarism
, —Daniel De Leon
Persevere. Guy
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
I said Guy, you said you needed capitalism to raise up a population to a standard of living that socialism is unable to do.
You said “What I have declared on countless occasions within this forum is the fact that socialist society would be able to take hold only within the context of an existing capitalist society – within the context of a fully industrialized society so that that society’s newly revolutionized and wholly organized workers would be able to both assume control of the means of production as well as to administer those means of production in perpetuity.”
Guy you are straining at gnats. We said the same thing.
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
Now if my statement is wrong, why do you need capitalism to “take hold only within the context of an existing capitalist society?” Some weakness in socialism you just admitted. It is unable to start up on its own. Socialism is like an electric car that has a cord that was made by a capitalist and goes to the end of its cord, and has to use power from a capitalist power plant and run on a capitalist road. LOL!!!
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Many call capitalism greed run amuck, but Guy just showed that the most acceptable method of achieving social nirvana is capitalism’s “greed.”
This means if we want the rest of the world to have the industrial base we have, we should be exporting capitalism and teach the world our “greed.” Otherwise we can only equalize the rest of the world with our socially conscious workers, which would mean either taking more than we need (greed) and then exporting to others, or allowing them the rest of the world the ability to learn or methods. Give the man a fish or teach him to fish.
Guy wants to stop any progress because we have enough already, so his world would be to work to build the rest of the world to our “greedy” standard. Or if we have too much we could share or redistribute our ill begotten gain. Even thought that gain was necessary to build his world view.
(
send private message
)
dbeardw says...
Paying people in other countries $1.00 and hour to put out many pairs of these athlete branded shoes for $125.00 is not capitalism. It’s just greed. Polluting their water supply by not following environmental sensibilities is not capitalism, it’s plain greed and desrepect for their quality of life.
Having Africans mine diamonds under duress that are brought back to this country and sold for thousands of dollars is not capitalism, it’s plantation slavery.
The capitalistic spirit was born out of a sense of competition, intelligence and strategy. It was not initially about greed, abuse of other cultures, and a dominance that suffocates and leads to the death of children and families in other countries.
I say Randy is the perfect candidate to go off and teach his brand of capitalism. His soul will not be waiting for him at the end of his lifetime as a vehicle back to God. In fact, he’ll be taking a long trip that will last for eternity where those who follow the antichrist can moan and groan about how well they did in life but eternity represents a different lifestyle for them entirely.
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
Thank you DBW for such a harsh personal judgment. I say fire those kids making a $1 a day and let’s see how their quality of life improves. It won’t, you need greed or nothing will get done. Labor Unions are greedy and that’s good. Right?
( send private message )
Cagy Wolf says...
Too many immigrants whether legal or illegal undermines the employment of americans. I disagree about how vital the immigrants are in germany like here there are many germans that want to work and greed by employers to hire illegal or legal immigrants.In germany the people are damn mad about, the same thing in England another nanny state, who cares more about the immigrants then its own citizens. Now Spain, Italy and other countries have wised up and have tougher laws about immigrant and they enforce their laws.
( send private message )
Cybertariat says...
Randy Hall: “Now if my statement is wrong, why do you need socialism to ‘take hold only within the context of an existing capitalist society – a fully industrialized society…’” [One would think that Randy has yet to read any of my many references to fully industrialized societies vs. agrarian and semi-agrarian societies.) “Some weakness of socialism that you just admitted [sic].”
But I have admitted to no such thing because, in this context, socialism cannot be characterized as being either weak or strong.
The fact that socialist society may come about only within the setting of a capitalist society, does not suggest that socialism is “weak” any more than the fact that capitalism could not possibly have been established within any other socioeconomic context other than mercantilsm implied that it – capitalism – was “weak.” Like all other such epochs of human social evolution (hunter gatherer societies, feudalism, merchantilism, and capitalism) socialism would be but another link within said evolution just as, say, “dial-up” eventually gave way to “DSL” relative to the evolution of Internet-related technology.
So, yes, socialism “is unable to start-up on its own.” Yet, as we have just seen, so too were feudalism, mercantilsm, and capitalism unable to “start up” on (their) own.
Randy: “Many call capitalism ‘greed run amok.’ But Guy has shown that the most acceptable method of achieving social nirvana is through capitalism’s ‘greed.’”
Once again, with Randy’s everlasting need to play games notwithstanding, I have shown no such thing.
In fact, in writing, in response to lancaster, “I…disagree that the now decades-long parade of workplace concessions vis-vis wages, healthcare, coverage and pension plans has much if anything to do with greed…” I quite clearly demonstrated my position that the social pathology known as “greed” has nothing to do with the existence of capitalism. (Do greedy people exist? Absolutely! Does capitalism’s dog-eat-dog social environment breed greed? To he sure. But is greed a part of the very essence of capitalism [the transformation of nature into commodities; and the subsequent transformation of commodities into private profit]? No!
Think about it: Was, as lancaster also wrote, the fact that “just twenty-years ago a worker could look forward to healthcare and a pension” due to their then being no such thing as greed? Of course not. But I have strayed too far.)
Randy: “…if we want the rest of the world to have the kind of industrial base that we have, we should be exporting capitalism and teaching the world our ‘greed.’”
But exporting capitalism to the Third World would constitute a fundamental violation of a portion of the American political state’s unofficial yet very real foreign policy; that having to do with the political state’s longstanding commitment to the thwarting of self-development throughout the Third World as well as throughout much of the Second or Developing World. This is what lies behind the fact that, as previously mentioned, various US-based multinational corporations simply extract much of the Third World’s natural resources in their raw or undeveloped form and then transport them elsewhere to be processed, sold and consumed. This system of economic exploitation is protected by the US government’s inveterate and accompanying practice of installing and supporting military dictatorships that keep their native populations in line while torturing, imprisoning and/or killing thos who seek indigenous self-development – those who would dare to develop their resources for their benefit.
So to create a scenario in which the US capitalist state would “export capitalism” to the Third World is, in all honesty, a rather naive assumption.
*
dbeardw: “Paying people in foreign countries $1.00 an hour to put out many pairs of these athlete branded shoes that sell for $125.00 is not capitalism. It’s just greed.”
Never will I put forth the proposition that most any capitalist would not all but drool on himself or herself over the prospect of being able to pay his or wage slaves as little as one dollar per hour. However, it is also quite true that, were he or she not to pay wages that are roughly equivalent to those being paid by his or her competitors, he or she would eventually be driven out of business by those who are willing to pay but a single dollar per hour. After all, the need to constantly reduce overheard as well as the demands of stockholders leave few capitalists with any other choice than to reduce wages as much as possible.
So, although capitalists can be and often are extremely greedy, greed in and of itself is not a driving force behind capitalist production.
dbeardw: “The capitalist spirit was borne out of a sense of competition…”
Well we are indeed bombarded with that and many other such notions on a near-daily basis and from any number of aspects of capitalist culture, and we certainly are expected to believe them. But does capitalism actually promote competition, or might it be the case that capitalism has everything to do with the elimination of competition?
Think about it…
Persevere. Guy
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Guy, if ore is dug out of the ground then processed into metal, then that metal is made into a car, that car is socialism. Without the capitalist process there would be no cars. You can’t make a car without some first steps.
MY POINT, if you want socialism, why not simply show the world how to do it. If we lead by example should we not teach the mining process first, then the smelting process, then the manufacturing process, before we suddenly slit out throat by possibly ignoring another step that capitalism has yet to reveal?
Another point, if you want the world to have a car, do you teach them how to make it or do you give it too them? Giving it too them means you have to take it from those that made it.
Now look at Cuba, it had the process given too but look at their cars.
Guy do you want the world more like them or more like us, where even a hourly worker can have a fine sports car. Cuba’s average worker has no such thing, and no hope of ever achieving it unless someone gives it too them.
This is why I say your theory is old, Marx most likely never envisioned the average worker to have more than he did. Today Marx would be considered a surfer dude living off mom and dad’s back.
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
Since socialism depends on the capitalist process to even exist and we know what the cars look like in Cuba, which is why I call socialism weak. It socialism can’t stand on its own. When it has tried it hasn’t worked because according to Guy, capitalism existed.
So think of socialism as a bunch of classic 50s cars that are so rusted they are nearly see-through. Why would anybody what such an outcome?
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
Guy, let’s have some fun with science shall we? You’ve said socialism is a science. Science is dependent upon repeatable results. So possibly you mean socialism is a theory?
Since in the last week we found out the global warming theory was baloney to enrich those that taught “green” we can study how a theory crumbles.
A theory is proposed and then people stand around it not saying my what a pretty theory they poke holes in it to see if the theory is sound.
Since socialism has not been tried according to you it should be easy to point to studies that prove this theory, or better yet, a simple experiment could be pointed to that would prove socialism rousing success that would make us stamped towards it. An experiment that has repeatable results; like how competition in the market place drives prices down and quality up.
Since the only measure we have of any proof of socialism’s success is in studying those that said they followed Marx’s theory. Guy would you care to point me towards some studies or examples of how your theory holds up?
I could cite a few examples of its utter failure and to totally disprove any scientific theory you only need to have repeatable proof that the theory doesn’t hold water.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
Guy Marsh if you hate america so much and capitalism, then when you visit the great socialist country of Cuba just stay there. we americans who fought for this nation love it and have no use for traitors like you.This nation used to be great and can be again would we elect honest politicians and enforce all the laws equally. Why should someone who came here illegally get a pass to break more laws? And why reward them with amnesty? And the cost in american lives not to mention all the crimes committed by illegal aliens against americans. The higher taxes etc etc etc. And diseases!!!! You haven’t a lick of common sense.
( send private message )
mattkeltner says...
Randy,
Socialism works! But not on a level or under any condition that most Marxists would care to admit to. In addition, “Socialism” (though it wasn’t called such) existed in various forms all over the earth.
First, look at the pre-colonial Iroquois tribe of Native Americans. Every single tribal member—even the chiefs and elders—were workers. Just as well, every tribal member was allowed to vote on matters concerning the entire community.
Early Icelandic culture was the same. In fact, Iceland was practicing direct democracy long before the Greeks had philosophised about such a concept.
The only living example of this type of society that we have today is in the Amish—a community consisting entirely of workers where everything is completely shared.
Many Marxists, however, despise the fact that the Amish have successfully created a worker’s community because it turns the modern Marxist view of how socialism should be carried out, completely on it’s head.
Today’s Marxists despise racial homogeneity (which the Amish definitely are), they disregard linguistic homogeneity (English and Low German are the only languages used)and perhaps most importantly, most Marxists despise Christianity (which is central to Amish living). By the way, subtracting the Christianity, this is exactly how Iroquois and Icelandic society functioned as well.
So, yes Randy, socialism does work! But not the type of it that is officially approved by Marxist academics who have a penchant for cultural supremacy and tend to regard sub-cultural ideas of community as “less than”, which is something that I have always had a problem with concerning Marxists themselves.
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
The Pilgrams found it didn’t work, so MK, the theory is still up for grabs. Sounds like a pitiful crap-shoot to me. Giving up what works and works very nicely for something yet to even work in any industral country.
( send private message )
mattkeltner says...
Socialism could work in an industrial society, but it would have to be small-scale and have most of the homogeneous attributes that were previously mentioned.
Guy has already told me that he plans to dispute what I have written, so I’m ready for that.
I’m sure I’ll get the standard Marxist- supremacist lecture that the only “real socialism” is Marxian socialism.
(
send private message
)
mattkeltner says...
Another interesting element, Randy, is that the quasi-socialism of the Amish feeds, albeit slightly, off of the capitalism of mainstream society — especially if the Amish choose to open up a mercantile and sell honey, almonds or hand-knit quilts to the public, wherein the money made is brought back in and evenly distributed throughout the community.
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
So then the Amish are not socialist, because they use some capitalism. Also the socialism would not be socialism in an industrial society because it would need capitalism to keep it industrialized.
( send private message )
roxi says...
“In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy.” – Fran Lebowitz.
love it. support your local Palmdale restaurants.
( send private message )
roxi says...
Ah yes, Dr. Dean. As like Bernie Sanders, VT-I, they promote European Socialism, or more to the point: Sweedish Socialism. Vermont has always had socialistic leanings due to their isolation, small population and geographic location which is near Quebec-a very socialistic provence.
Guy says: “But does capitalism actually promote competition, or might it be the case that capitalism has everything to do with the elimination of competition?
Think about it…”
I think this is what has happened over the centuries with deregulated capitalism in the US. With gigantic mergers of large corporations, which gave them the powers to spread their ‘wealth’ around the world – the ‘corporation’ in today’s capitalistic environment has taken over. Operating as an ‘individual’, corporations have discouraged and exploited entrepreneur’s to the point that any company or individual with an original thought or concept is either bought up or stolen (think what the Chinese are now doing with our technology) for the ‘corporations’ benefit only. Reads: buy up the competition and eliminate the problem. Can also be seen as ‘greed’.
Much like what happened in the 70’s when electric and alternative fuel cars, and solar energy were on the upswing. Large corporations bought up the technology/companies – then put ’em out of business.
So sure, mix the two: Capitalism & Socialism….if it works. And yes, the Democratic party has had to keep campaigning a constant effort – after all, the GOP has for years.
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
Matt: "Socialism works! But not on a level or under any condition that most Marxists would care to admit to. In addition, ‘socialism’ (though it wasn’t called such) existed in various forms all over earth.
“First, look at the pre-colonial Iroquois tribe of Native Americans. Every single tribal member – even the chiefs and elders – were workers. Just as well, every tribal member was allowed to vote on matters concerning the entire community.”
Quite true. In fact, as I know Matt to be aware of, both Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, with an eye toward Marxian social science’s anthropological component, studied the customs, activities and overall social structure of the Iroquois peoples quite extensively. In preperation of the material that would eventually come to be published as a portion of Frederick Engels’ “The Origin of the Family; Private Property and the State” (1884), Dr. Marx learned of not only the Iroquois’ highly cooperative and democratic social structure but also of the fact that the Iroquois’ Constitution was remarkably similar (too) and pre-dated that of early Roman society.
Still, though the Iroquois, other Native American peoples as well as many such ancient societies worldwide did in fact demonstrate socially organized and cooperative living arrangements, not one of these civilizations ever developed the sort of means of production that would have enabled them to adopt the sort of socialism set forth by Dr. Karl Heinrich Marx and Frederick Engels – revolutionary or scientific socialism. To put it another way, the existence of a society that practices both cooperation and a highly democratic social structure, though certainly praiseworthy, does not serve to establish the material circumstances that are requisite to so much as the development of Marxian-socialist thought, let alone the development of Marxian-socialist society.
Now, of course, one could well-associate such socially advanced yet technologically rudimentary societies with utopian socialism which cites Kibbutzes, communes and other such things as being representative of socialism. But to allude to such societies being able to lend themselves to Marxian-socialist society – to the sort of society capable of eliminating widespread human suffering by allowing for a material abundance for all human beings would be to admit to a complete misunderstanding of Marxian thought. And let us face it: Whenever the word “socialism” is uttered, one of the first things if not the first thing that “pops into” one’s head is the name “Karl Marx.” Ergo, like all Marxists, I am duty-bound to clarify.
Matt: "The only living example or this type of society that we have today is in the Amish – a community consisting entirely of workers where everything is completely shared. [Note: As I have denoted on numerous occasions, Marxian socialism does not promote sharing per se. Rather, Marxian socialism puts forth the proposition that workers need develop an economic system in which they would enjoy all of the economic benefit of their labor power and/or their intellectual power. No sharing required.]
“Many Marxists, however, despise the fact that the Amish have successfullly created a workers’ communty [of sorts] because it turns the modern Marxist view of how socialism should be carried out, completely on its head.” (Again, we Marxists seek to explain the way in which Marxian socialism and only Marxian socialism would be carried out.)
Anecdotally speaking, this Marxist happens to be a great admirer of not Amish communities but also of Mennonite communties, and never have I known of a Marxist to exhibit hostility toward either the Amish or the Mennonites. I admire these cultures for their being living and somewhat large-scale demonstrations of the axiom that "less is more (a concept that capitalist culture deems threatening), and for the fact that their respective peoples lead lives that are largely devoid of the stresses and strains of this consumer-based and thus rather twisted culture. But we Marxists are not at all threatened by the communal or perhaps utopian socialist nature of either Amish or Mennonite cultures, nor do they in any way, shape, manner or form turn Marxism “on its head.”
Furthermore, as Matt indicated in a subsequent post, Amish (and) Mennonite cultures are, inescapably, dependent upon capitalist society for their very survival and, accordingly, are no more “threatening” to the meaning of Marxism than are the sum total of the world’s Kibbutzes, communes and other manifestations of utopian or bourgeois socialism.
Matt: “Today’s Marxists despise racial homogeneity (which the Amish definitely are), they disregard linguistic homogeneity (English and Low German are the only languages used) and, perhaps most importantly, most Marxists despise Christianity (which is central to Amish living).”
Though I know of no other Marxist that despises Christianity, I must say that I give Christianity no quarter. Then again, I despised Christiantity while I was a member of the Republican Party just as Ayn Rand despised Christianity while a libertarian; and just as the fact remains that most atheists are not also Marxists. So perhaps this is all quite meaningless. (Marxism and religion.) As for racial and linguistic homogeneity, I haven’t a single issue with either, at least not as long as they’re not being used as racial and cultural batons, as I’m certain that they never are so used. Beyond that, it has long been my contention that, given the presence of the seldom promoted concept of “economic homogeneity” – of a rough equivalent with regard to personal income – racial and cultural homogeneity take on far less relevancy in relation to social harmony. The fact that nearly all cultures and certainly all of the various shades of meaningless skin pigmentation are represented within socially harmonious communities the likes of Greenwich, Connecticut; Palm Beach, Florida; and Newport Beach, California should be more than sufficent to prove that point – to wit, I don’t imagine there to be much of a demand for “Eye in the Sky” projects within these communities, irrespective of their racial and cultural compositions.
Matt: “…socialism does work. But not the type that is officially approved by Marxist academics who have a penchant for cultural supremacy [huh?] and tend to regard sub-cultural ideas of community as ‘less than’…”
I see.
Yet, as readers have seen within this post, we Marxists merely endeavor to differentiate between Marxism/revolutionary socialism and the various forms of utopian/bourgeois socialism mentioned herein.
Respecting Matt’s “Marxist[s]…penchant for cultural supremacy [and disregard for] sub-cultural ideas of community” is really quite absurd. For as readers have also seen within this very post, its Marxist author is by no means the one often given to the promotion of racial and cultural homogeneousness. Moreover, combating the varigated, illogical and socially divisive doctrines surrounding racial and cultural supremacy is without quesion one of the very hallmarks of Marxian endeavor. For Marxists have fought in and indeed died in such battles (i.e., that of Greensboro, North Carolina, November 3rd, 1979). Or have I perhaps misconstrued Matt’s employment of the phrase “cultural supremacy”?
Persevere.
Guy
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Socialism is democracy —Randy Hall 2009
( send private message )
mattkeltner says...
Guy Marsh: “The fact that nearly all cultures and certainly all of the various shades of meaningless skin pigmentation are represented within socially harmonious communities the likes of Greenwich, Connecticut; Palm Beach, Florida; and Newport Beach, California should be more than sufficent to prove that point – to wit, I don’t imagine there to be much of a demand for “Eye in the Sky” projects within these communities, irrespective of their racial and cultural compositions. ”
Interesting theory!
So, I went to the U.S. Census Bureau website and looked up the composition of the respective populations.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
White/Caucasian — 74.5%
Black — 15.7%
American Indian — 00.4%
Asian — 02.2%
Native Hawaiian - 00.1% 17.3%
Hispanic Origin
(may be of any race)
-
GREENWICH, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT
White/Caucasian — 86.0%
Black — 02.3%
American Indian — 00.0%
Asian — 07.2%
Native Hawaiian - 00.0% 08.0%
Hispanic Origin
(may be of any race)
-
NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
White/Caucasian — 89.9%
Black — 00.6%
American Indian — 00.1%
Asian - 06.6% 06.7%
Hispanic Origin
(may be of any race)
-
Facts are facts. Whether or not it’s comfortable to talk openly about depends on the people involved and their willingness to be open to reality.
(
send private message
)
mattkeltner says...
Another, interesting, fact:
The crime rate in Santa Clarita has skyrocketed. The concentration of criminal activity is in the area of Soledad Canyon Road between Whites Canyon Road and State Route 14. Coincidentally, this area is also host to more apartment complexes than any other part of the city.
(
send private message
)
dbeardw says...
lancaster says…
i think the story u tell DB was that it was commented at this time, that the oil could be sold to help feed the poor. that was when jesus said the poor will always be with us."
Thank you Lancaster for correcting me. I appreciate it. I even like the point you make even more — that the poor will always be with us.
And we must help them to uplift, empower and strengthen themselves.
Again, thanks for the correction.
(
send private message
)
No Spin says...
Uplift them by helping them get back on their feet, not by imprisoning them to a life of gub’mt handouts and little self esteem… That is how the poor can be “uplifted”…
( send private message )
dbeardw says...
NoSpin – different people require different methods and systems of support. One size, as they say, does not necessarily fit all situations.
Cagy Wolf talked about taking a young person over to a car dealership to help them get a job. Maybe that was all that person needed.
Other people may need to stay at a Battered Women’s Shelter. Someone else may need to learn to read. Someone else may need a wide range of services.
What you may call ‘imprisoning someone’ someone else may call ‘establishing an extensive support network’.
If you want to use a true measurement stick — I say try to walk a mile in that person’s shoes and figure out what you would need if you were that individual.
(
send private message
)
dbeardw says...
Guy – one of the most difficult situations for me was to have my children ask me ‘where is God in all of this misery’. They would see people suffering in different countries and in our own, and ask if God is so merciful and loving then why the Holocaust, why the civil rights issues, why the murdering of children, etc.
We talk about all these social and economic systems yet there is inbred cruelty in each. One does not really seem to meet any more human needs than any other one. As Lancaster reminded me, the poor will always be with us no matter what system we choose to live under.
(
send private message
)
No Spin says...
I agree diana.. and we ALL owe it to our fellow citizens to help them when and where we can… not always with money…
Too many apply a dollar amount to “helping the needy” and refuse to honor other ways.. so many ways so many good people do what they can…
(
send private message
)
dbeardw says...
Nospin – I agree with you. I stopped believing a long time ago that any one person can save the world. I use to be very idealistic about those types of things.
Now I try to do my little bit in my limited world as Cagy Wolf did when he took the person over to find a job.
We can only do what we can and more often then not it IS NOT, as you say about money.
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
While fully expecting Matt to research the racial compositions of the largely socially harmonious communites that I listed in the post to which he responded to, I employed the words “all of the various shades of meaningless skin pigmentation are represented within [these] socially harmonious communites” and “irrespective of their racial and cultural compositions” as a matter of strategy. (Emphasis not in original.)
Yes, as I knew perfectly well beforehand, Greenwich, Connecticut; Palm Beach, Florida; and Newport Beach, California play host to human populations that are predominately white, for are there any extremely wealthy American cities that are not predominately white? Nevertheless, the populations of those three cities (do) include American Indians, Asians, Blacks, Latinos, and Native Hawaiians. So why it that, although “racial” minorities do in fact reside within Greenwich, Connecticut; Palm Beach, Florida; and Newport Beach, California, these communities are able to boast about extremely low levels of street crime, particularly that of the “racially”-motivated variety? Is it because the black population of, say, Palm Beach (15.7%) consists of “cool” or “good” black people?
Are the Latinos who reside within Newport Beach not involved in street gang activities because their religious faiths are simply too strong to allow for gang involvement? Well if the fact that virtually all convicted, Latino “gangbangers” have reported some sort of religious affiliation, religion isn’t likely to be the reason.
What, then, is the answer? Why are the Asians of Greenwich, Connecticut apparently not affiliated with Asian street gangs? Because, not unlike the members of Greenwich’s black population, Asians residing within Greenwich, Connecticut happen to be people of means (read: they are in possession of plenty o’ money). Therefore, they haven’t the material motivation to be involved in street crime nor to blame those of differing skin pigmentation for their problems.
Matt: “Facts are facts. Whether or not it’s comfortable to talk openly about depends on the people involved and their willingness to be open to reality.”
I could not have written that any better.
Matt: “Another interesting fact: The crime rate in Santa Clarita has skyrocketed. The concentration of criminal activity is in the area of…Coincidentally, this area is also host to more apartment complexes than any other part of the city.”
To be sure, financially desperate people do indeed “do desperate things.” And were those apartments to be inhabited by poor, white workers – to the exclusion of poor people of all other “races,” Santa Clarita’s crime rate would see no change. Ultimately, street crime has largely to do with poverty while it hasn’t a damned thing to do with skin pigmentation, irrespective of whether of not we wish to be open to reality.
Oh but surely I am mistaken Surely street crime largely the result of “laziness, bad attitudes, the social welfare system and inferior genes.” Idiocy!
-*
dbeardw: “…the poor will always be with us no matter what system we choose to live inder.”
With all due respect to Diana and all other religionists, that sort of statement is one of the main reasons why I carry such an aversion to religion; believing it to constitute a very real threat to humankind’s very survival.
Yes, I am sure that Diana does believe that “the poor will always be with us” simply because she has been conditioned since the day of her birth to accept the contrived notion that the plight of poorer members of the world’s working class was preordained by “God” – that “It is ’God’s’ will” and that “We can only hope to alleviate their suffering through ‘prayer’ and charity.” Nonsense!
Poverty, from which the lot of us are but a very few months removed from at any given time, carries with it a very real and thus very earthly material cause – namely, the minority ownership and control of the means of economic production – a means of production which is presently geared toward the economic “needs” of a tiny, nonproductive minority rather than toward the human needs of the totality of humankind. And the protection and perpetuation of that most illogical and entirely unjust system of exploitation is the very reason for the existnce of the social control apparatus oherwise known as religion, most especially Christianity. (“Keep them stupid. Keep them ‘praying ’ Keep them to believing that ’their rewards will come in the afterlife’ all the while we continue to live in a state of permanent vacation at their expense.”)
Persevere. Guy
( send private message )
roxi says...
Guy:"Yes, I am sure that Diana does believe that “the poor will always be with us” simply because she has been conditioned since the day of her birth to accept the contrived notion that the plight of poorer members of the world’s working class was preordained by “God” – that “It is ‘God’s’ will” and that “We can only hope to alleviate their suffering through ‘prayer’ and charity.” Nonsense!
Just as some women are conditioned at an early age to be subservient – many people are conditioned to believe that there will always be the poor and less fortunate. Otherwise, the rich would not exist – or be harder to define.
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Roxi, some people are so poor in spirit I think that is what Jesus was referring too. You know people that wake up each day mad at something that they have to DO SOMETHING because it isn’t right. You can’t argue with their emotions and feelings because even though they live in the greatest country on earth, with every chance of making things better some demon in their brain makes them feel unfulfilled.
They take that empty feeling and try to create feel-good things and don’t even care if they work because it was SOMETHING.
Instead of calling this a mental illness we have political parties that pander too it. Creating misery with their SOMETHINGS and then expanding the SOMETHINGS never bothering to understand the very SOMETHINGS they create are causing the opposite of what they want, which is relief from their feelings of hopelessness. They then get angry at those that say your SOMETHINGS are destroying families and creating dependency which then becomes another problem for a parasite politician to pander too.
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
Getting angry or calling me names would prove me right. If your first feeling was one of anger, just ask yourself do I want to prove Randy right once again?
One thing that seems to always infuse the do SOMETHING people is a very noticeable anger and condescension. It usually comes out in making things up about other people they disagree with, calling them child-like names, or calling in to question the size of their penis. From my POV I relish the name calling because they are saying I’m in the mud join me. I just stand their and watch them wallow in whatever that muck is. Like NS I enjoy the show.
(
send private message
)
mattkeltner says...
Guy Marsh: "Ultimately, street crime has largely to do with poverty while it hasn’t a damned thing to do with skin pigmentation, irrespective of whether of not we wish to be open to reality.
Oh but surely I am mistaken Surely street crime largely the result of “laziness, bad attitudes, the social welfare system and inferior genes.’ Idiocy! "
Then might you care to explain why West Virginia - a state consumed by chronic poverty (comparable to any urban area) - also has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation?
I know what the demographics of that state are.
Now, it’s up to you, Guy Marsh, to give me a logical explanation as to why there is a disconnect in your theory that poverty causes crime in the case of West Virginia?
(
send private message
)
mattkeltner says...
You see, Guy, the real “science” is in the statistics. Science bears out reality, sometimes to such an embarassing or politically-incorrect extent that there comes a need to keep it under wraps for fear of the social suspicions it might potentially arouse.
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Marxism, as a scientific theory is as totally bogus and full of holes as the global warming baloney. Just a matter of time before some hacker shows us what economically works and what doesn’t.
Marxism doesn’t work and Marx knew it would lead to an even bigger revolt. That should frighten people that some want unrest and social unease so they can parlay that into political power via their economic theory.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
Marxism or socialism just doesn’t work, the rich are still rich and poor is still poor. The Elite (in USSR days) lived just like Kings while the people waited in long lines for bread, forget the kind of food available we have. Common place items were hard to find and special stores again for the Elite and their buddies while the people did without. Marxism is a failure simply because of human nature.
( send private message )
Cagy Wolf says...
And back to DBW, the homeless kid didn’t get a job where I took him. I told the ki
d to go back there after april for a job. But the fact remains, illegals are employed at this car lot while a needy american wants the job washing cars. I have said this over and over, its a myth by the pro-illegal, pro-amnesty groups that americans don’t do or want the jobs illegals are doing.
( send private message )
Cybertariat says...
Matt: “Now it is up to you, Guy Marsh, to give me a logical explanation as to why there is a disconnect in ‘your’ theory that poverty causes crime in the case of West Virginia.” [Matt had written “…West Virginia – a state consumed by chronic poverty (comparable to any urban area) -also has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation[.]” ]
As most any examination of this thread will reveal, I have not simply stated “Poverty causes crime.” What I have stated on any number of occasions is that "street crime has largely to do with poverty. (Emphasis in original.) One should be able to deduce from that that street crime may also arise from any number of other causes such as non-poverty-related drug abuse and mental illness just as surely as it is entirely possible for poverty-stricken populations the likes of West Virginia to exhibit relatively low levels of street crime. As for exactly why the State of West Virginia possesses one of the nation’s lowest crime rates is something that I don’t believe can be answered with any degree of certainty. However, the validity of my statement that “…given the presence of the seldom promoted concept of ‘economic homogeneity’ – of a rough equivalent with regard to personal income – racial and cultural homogeneity take on far less relevancy in relation to social harmony” (see this thread’s forty-ninth comment post) may be borne out by two separate studies conducted by Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley. Both of these independent studies “compared state crime rates to their income equality rates, and found that the states with the most inequality had the highest rate of homicide, violent crime and incarceration. The reason is still being explored, but potential explanations include psychological reasons, and the fact that prices of needed goods and services are relative too, even in a rich country.” Therefore, in light of West Virginia being ranked “49th” in the nation compared with "Personal Income Per Capita (Eighth paragraph), it may well be that that state’s low crime rate stems from the fact that that state’s poverty is a relatively equal phenomenon – that there isn’t much of a gulf between wealthier West Virginians and poorer West Virginians.
The main thrust of the information offered within the website listed immediately above is that “getting tough on crime” does not serve to achieve the desired result of lowering crime rates, in fact such draconian measures do not carry with them the exact opposite effect. So, since West Virginia’s crime rate is three times lower than that of Florida, as an example, all the while the State of West Virginia spends three times less per capita on law enforcement than does the State of Florida, it may also be true that West Virginians commit fewer crimes per capita partly because they are not, unlike the citizens of, say, Florida and California, inappropriately policed and thus treated as if they were animals.
Another contributing factor may be religion. It may well be that the majority of West Virginans are living examples of how religious indoctrination often tends to pacify large numbers of people even when they should not necessarily remain both passive and acquiescent. Whether or not West Virginian’s economic situation is dire enough to warrant some level of revolt on their part is, of course, open to speculation. Nonetheless, the possible psychological reasons cited in the previously mentioned Harvard and Berkeley studies could be directly linked to Christian doctrine which does tend to pacify.
In the final analysis, no one but no one can be certain as to why West Virginia’s crime rate is one of this society’s very lowest juxtaposed to its relatively high level of poverty. But to state or to so much as insinuate that West Virginia’s relatively low level of street crime is directly correlated with the fact that very few people of color happen to reside within that state – that “people of color and crime go hand in hand with one another” is a racist, groundless and divisive assertion that cannot possibly help to bring about a better understanding of the human condition. (See Jennifer W’s comment.) In truth, it is the sort of nonsense pushed upon us by those who would also “explain” other social realities based on superstition, mythology, metaphysics and the super natural. The lot of it, however, is nothing more than the same old, tired, unintelligent, racist rhetoric that has been recycled into various shapes and forms since the days of Reconstruction. It is the purview of the vulgar William Shockley, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray and still other purveyors of “deterministic racist doctrines” (Edward S. Herman). And it can only “serve” to further divide an already fractured working class for the benefit of the numerically outnumbered yet extremely powerful capitalist class.
Persevere. Guy
( send private message )
Cybertariat says...
The portion of the post listed immediately above which reads “…in fact such draconian measures…” (third paragraph) should have read as follows: “…if in fact such draconian measures…”
*
*
*
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Trying to use the Marxist theory to explain social ills causes one to realize how wrong that theory is. For example, how can you expect a person to work for the self-interest of others without apealing to a high moral standard? Then do you scientifically use that moral code to punish the skofflaws?
( send private message )
dbeardw says...
Randy Hall says…
Marxism, as a scientific theory is as totally bogus and full of holes as the global warming baloney. Just a matter of time before some hacker shows us what economically works and what doesn’t.
Marxism doesn’t work and Marx knew it would lead to an even bigger revolt. That should frighten people that some want unrest and social unease so they can parlay that into political power via their economic theory."
Randy is making sense but not just in terms of economic theory. Randy’s concept can applied to all aspects of life from the personal to the professional.
Religious leaders of every ilk want to scare you into making sure you adhere to the man made principles of their church dogma or else there is an eternity of pain awaiting your soul.
Government leaders like Bush wanted to play John Wayne with the Arab world just so he could get back at Saddam for insulting his big daddy. Thousands of lives of innocent children and families lost, a country disseminated and rebuilt by Bush’s friends’ contracts — all those lies Bush told to PARLAY his childish and financially greedy whims into political power.
Catholic church hiding all those child molesters just to make sure the donations kept coming in. The Catholic Church is one of the most powerful unnamed FORTUNE 500 companies in the world but they hide behind a religious mask. How many Jews were they responsible for sending to their deaths?
Now we’ve got the debate over EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM. Who knows what’s up, down or side ways half the time.
EVERYONE IS USING SCARE TACTICS TO PARLAY THEIR WAY OF THINKING INTO POLITICAL POWER. FROM MAN MADE RELIGIOUS GROUPS TO GOVERNMENT — EVERYONE IS MANIPULATING US AND TRYING TO CREATE THEIR OWN POWER BASE.
Holes abound in every facet of life but that doesn’t stop people from having faith and BELIEVING. In a marital relationship, there are holes upon holes, but they’re covered up by holding on to the trust you want to have in the other person, even if it’s not warranted.
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
Grumpy: “All countries are both capitalist and socialist to a degree…”
If we are to subscribe to the widespread folk tale having to do with liberalism or so-called reformism being a manifestation or an extension of socialism, then, yes, nearly all countries do indeed exhibit indications of both capitalism and socialism. Contrary to what capitalist culture has guided the majority of us to believe, however, liberalism is clearly not an indication of socialism. In fact, to be a student of Marxian thought is to understand that socialism and liberalism stand quite opposed to one another.
Regarding Grumpy’s contention that the former Soviet Union was an outgrowth of socialism – that “[s]ocialism has been tried over and over…” I should like to offer the following: Prerequisites
*
Randy Hall: “[Was] Pol Pot a revolutionary like you [Cybertariat]?”
As I wrote within the previously mentioned thread Prerequisites for one to assert that Pol Pot and his abominable Khmer Rouge imposed something as relatively benevolent as Soviet-style bureaucratic state despotism or state capitalism upon the people of Cambodia is to admit to a high degree of unfamiliarity with Indochinese history, for the Khmer Rouge imposed nothing of the sort. They imposed nothing more than agrarian collectivism within what can only be
described as having been an induced Stone Age social context. A Stone Age social context which began when the American political state chose to commit genocide against the people of Cambodia. (Related reading: Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross, Simon and Schuster, 1979.)" —fourth comment post; seventh paragraph.
In other words, no, Pol Pot was no more a product of socialism than I am a product of the right-wing politics that inadvertantly brought him to power.
Randy: “Then why is it that the more capitalist a country is the more desirable it is for workers seeking less hardship? [sic]”
As it concerns the more recent and greatly accelerated trend toward undocumented immigration of the past twenty-years or so, the answer to that question is, I believe, borne out by the fact that workers, particularly those migrating from Third World countries such as Mexico, are simply “following the money.” This is because international monetary agreements the likes of NAFTA and CAFTA are quite obviously written in ways that heavily favor their wealthier signatories – those nations who propose and chiefly draft said agreements, especially the United States. Consequently, as those mostly one-sided agreements begin to further ravage the already beleaguered economies of the Third World (by way of “dumping” et al), an increasing number of Third World peoples are delivered destitute and are then faced with little choice but to quickly migrate, either legally or illegally, or to face certain starvation.
Randy: “Since the average worker can own a home and a car, and is able to enjoy leisure time, why such pessimism? What exactly do you see that makes you feel that we need revolutionary change? [sic]”
What I see is the growing number of workers who are unable to own a home or even a car. What I see is the reality that, seemingly each and every year, we workers are able to enjoy less and less leisure time; that more and more of us are having to work at two or even three jobs at one time simply to provide ourselves and our dear ones with the bare essentials thereby robbing us our humanity and so much more; that, relative to inflation, the average American worker has not seen an increase in “real wages” since 1973 – since Randy and I, who are now in our 50s, were but fifteen-years old; and that the lot of these negative trends and many others will only worsen due to the fact that automation and other rapidy unfolding improvements to the means of production are allowing the capitalist system to function with an ever-decreasing number of workers and to allow capitalists to pay ever-decreasing wages to those who remain. So indeed I am not burdened by pessimism but rather by the stark realities of latter-day, monolithic capitalism.
*
Matt Keltner: “In the economies of the Nordic nations (Sweden, Denmark, Findland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland) capitalism was harnessed for the benefit of all citizens.”
Quite true. And, although this “Nordic capitalism” was and still is based upon the exploitation of wage labor, that social democratic harnessing served the social needs of those respective societies remarkably well for several decades. But now that capitalism is entering its final stage
That is precisely the sort of thing that Daniel De Leon had in mind upon his having written Socialism or barbarism. For capitalism, with its having nowhere left to expand into; no new marketplaces in which to sell its wares; no new sources of raw materials to exploit, as well as an ever-increasing level of competition for what remains; and no new sources of cheap labor power to exploit coupled with the diminishing need for workers, will sooner or later collapse of its own weight and thus hasten a state of global feudalism hitherto unimagined. (Scandinavia’s social democracies.)
Yours in revolution.
Persevere.
Guy
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Sorry, Guy I didn’t ask if Pol Pott was a socialist like you, I asked if he was revolutionary like you proudly profess? So was Pol Pott a revolutionary like you or a Christian like me?
I think that is a pretty straight forward question and goes to what a revolutionary is. Revolution is like playing Russian roulette. You may not die, but chances are if you try it enough you’ll kill yourself.
Now is the outcome of revolution always something that can be predicted? If not why would you cheapen your fellow citizens in accepting the possible highjack of your revolution. In other words show us why we should risk your revolution? Please use other people’s revolutions to show the bloody history of your revolutionary rhetoric.
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
Webster’s New World Dictionary defines the term “revolutionary” as follows:
“1. of characterized by, favoring, or causing a revolution in a government or social system; 2. bringing about or constituting a great or radical change; 3. of or having to do with the American Revolution.”
Ergo, since Pol Pot did indeed bring about radical change within Cambodian society (thanks to the US government’s then secret and thus highly unconstitutional bombings of the sovereign nation of Cambodia) he did in fact fit the definition of a revolutionary. But was he, as Randy asked, “a revolutionary like [me]”? Hardly. Pol Pot was bloodthirsty, ruthless, depraved and likely clinically insane. That is where it both begins and ends.
Randy: “…show us why we should risk your revolution.”
(Now I’m beginning to understand why it is that Randy virtually always ignores or otherwise simply fails to respond to the preponderance of my posts – posts that are quite often written in direct response to comments and questions posed by he; he just doesn’t see the majority of the text within my posts. Perhaps he is in need of the services if an optometrist,)
In reality, my response to Randy’s “show us why we should risk ‘your’ revolution” is embodied within the totality of my post to which he “reponded” to; yet another post that was written largely in response to comments and questions posed by Randy himself – a post which, as per usual, was all but completely ignored by Randy because he is without any amount of legitimate arguments because his ideology is utterly bankrupt.
*
Yours in revolution.
Persevere.
Guy.
*
*
*
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
I’d ignore “people’s revolutions” too. Once a revolution is started you need a very moral people to bring about social justice. Usually revolution brings blood shed as Guy pointed out. My point is why go with anarchy like revolution?
You have no idea of the outcome but the unknown is worth it in overcoming this “hell” we live in known as the USA.
(
send private message
)
CASimons says...
‘Tis true. For a revolution to be effective, the people need to have a moral compass. Yet, just like the french Revolution, the proletariat exchanged their kings and the bourgeoisie for another corrupt leadership. Wasn’t this one of the lessons from Animal Farm?
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Since revolution is very unscientific meaning we have no idea of the outcome regardless of the motives, why would a so-called “science” depend on revolution for its genesis? I’d say this is another gapping hole in the Marxist “theory.”
“Revolution for the sake of the struggle!”
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
Since saying “the French Revolution” is somewhat akin to saying “Elizabeth Taylor’s husband,” I have no idea as to what CASimons had in mind when he or she wrote “…just like the French Revloution…” of which there have been many (or at least many attempted revolutions); 1789, 1830. 1848, and even the Paris Commune of 1871 which, though devoid of the industrially organized working-class requisite for successful socialist revolution, is widely considered to have been the world’s first working-class revolution.
Also, though I am admittedly not all that knowledgeable with respect to any of France’s many revolutionary periods, I’m curious as to what it was that CASimons meant by “…the [French] proletariat exchanged their ‘kings’ and bourgeoisie for another corrupt leadership” since I know of no epoch of French history in which a particular revolutionary vanguard found itself able to assume power and to therefore show itself as having been corrupt. After all, the one thing that held true throughout France’s lengthy revolutionary period was the fact that all of the sociopolitical proposals submitted by the French working class were responded to with nothing short of swift and brutal repression by the “moral” French bourgeoisie and its political and military henchmen, most especially in response to the Paris Commune of 1871; during which time more than 40,000 French workers were slaughtered on the streets of Paris, alone, and by the morality of capitalist reaction. (The term “morality” being a terribly relative one.) So exactly when were any number or French revolutionaries so much as able to have shown themselves to be corrupt vis-a-vis governing power?
Additionally, in view of the fact that George Orwell was himself a socialist – that the seemingly omnipotent power of capitalist culture has managed to contort the very meaning of Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” I have to say that, no, this implied lack of “morality” on behalf of French revolutionaries is wholly removed from the lessons of Animal Farm. Nevertheless, I do remain open to the possibility of my being enlightened.
*
In regards to Randy’s post of “11:53” AM, I will say that his rather ambiguous statement sprang from a premise that is most assuredly false – the false yet popular premise that tells us that revolutions are inherently of a violent character. But whom else would we expect to keep to the ignorant notion that revolutions must include bloodshed?
Yours in revolution.
Persevere.
Guy
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
I think Guy is saying ignore history because he wants a “people’s revolution.” His problem is how are you going to get happy section 8ers to rebel? How about Welfare reform, that didn’t get rebellion. Yes, the science of revolution; let’s toss it in the air and pray for no blood shed.
Then we only have to assign a morality to our revolution to help “steer” the revolution’s course. Tongue in cheek but the logic of revolutionary thought is lacking, and it seems like it relies on luck or providence.
Now since a revolution would have to be carried out by a very moral people, which morality would the Marxist champion?
(
send private message
)
Grumpy says...
Guy: OK, I counted backwards.
Sorry, I had only skimmed the post you referred to. I fear your verbosity sometimes overwhelms me so I probably miss a lot of the points you are making.
I’m a broad-picture kind of guy and all this convoluted and nuanced redefinition of word meaning tends to put me off. Based on their underlying philosophies, I do in fact group “liberal”, “socialist”, “Marxist”, etc. into the same general category. Actually, the term “statist” probably does in fact best cover them all, because all favor concentration of power over the citizens into the state.
So I guess my comment on your post is that if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck it is most likely a duck. I have a big problem with the endless protests that “Oh, those guys weren’t REALLY true [what-ever]”. This is, of course, the same argument used by followers of a common religious philosophy to try and distance their religion from the actions of the terrorists we are involved with.
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
“©onvoluted and nuanced ‘redefinition’ of word meaning.” Redefiniton?
So, in other words, Marxism was defined – developed – by parties unknown and then redefined by Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and, no doubt, individuals such as myself through the ages. I see.
In all seriousness, it has of course been capitalist culture that has redefined the meaning of Marxism, or at least as it relates to the invented “reality” held by the vast majority. When Grumpy and other more vocal causualties of that indoctrination come to be confronted by that rare student of Marxian social science – be it through the Internet or elsewhere – they often react with hostility and/or disbelief. While making statements the likes of “I do in fact group ‘liberal,’ ‘socialist,’ ‘Marxist,’ etc., into the same general category [Grimpy],” these individuals demonstrate nothing more than their complete ignorance of Marxism; having relied upon non-Marxists for their “understanding” of Marxism their entire lives – having never bothered to study original sources of Marxist literature. (No, having read the Communist Manifesto does not so much as begin to constitute an understanding of Marxian socialism.)
That is precisely the reason why, even in the presence of a Marxian socialist, such individuals continue to stubbornly cling to statements the likes of the following:
“I have a big problem with the endless protests that ‘Oh, those guys weren’t really true (whatever)’ [Grumpy].” Yes, there have been and there continue to be those equally ignorant men and women who put forth such nonsense. But to actually bother oneself with an independent study of original source material having to do with Marxian socialism is to know that the attempted establishment of socialist society would have absolutely nothing to do with the “socialist credentials” of a particular set of revolutionaries. Rather and in actuality, it would have everything to do with (any guesses?) that’s right: it would have everything to do with the degree to which that particular society lends itself to a fully industrialized society as well as to the degree to which the mass of its workers were organized along industrial lines so that they would not only be able to assume control of that society’s industries and services but to also administer those operate and administer those industries and services going forward.
But has our Grumpy bothered to read Prerequisites? Not bloody likely! After all, who the hell am I? I’m not Rush Limbaugh! I’’m not Ronald Reagan! I’’m not wealthy! I’m not an entertainment personality!
Indeed, having to interact with an actual Marxist is simply far too unsettling. “Don’t confuse me with what it really is. My mind has already been made-up for me.”
*
Persevere.
Guy
*
*
*
( send private message )
Would you like to comment on this blog post? Login to talk back!
Randy Hall says...
150 years ago such envy of others might seem desirable, today the average worker in this capitalist county lives like a king. Might be time to find a scientific theory that elevates instead of tears down the average.
( send private message )